Film Polemics

Citation preview

FILM POLEMiCS ‘

'

.

:d.b1

Snhi Hm Slmemln Dllllptl

CRIB GlJJB,DE_CAI.L'U'ITA CALCU'I'l'!n-13

Dlltribullt: Dqflookllulh

C. L]

glml’

?N

W-'5 I3 ' F55

i

y

General Seurutury Gin: Club of Calcutta I2 Jawharlal Nehru Road -Calcutta-700 013 Printed from : "The Saraswati Printing Wurkl 42 Guruprasacl Ctiuudhury Lauu -Calcutta-T00 U06

Cover : design and printed by Arabinda Ghulh, 10, Situnm Ghuuh Street, Cal-700009 Fii-at Edition : Juuuai-y,1 992 Dish!-luitor -: D:-3' Book Stores

13, Bankim Chattcrjuu Stroat Calcutta-700 D73

Pricu: Rs. 50.00 ti 5.00 £ 3.00

I-""|.l .-rJ'1""'-fl

["3 r

Clu 31¢’

1*"

'—\L

PL HM-su

I51-15-43

Tu,

.

‘ G()~

_

Gupa

_,-.|

This eolleetion of debates on films published in variuos newspaporfjournals, is primarily aimel

at better understanding of films as well as to reeord the polernies in a single eover. It may be interesting for the younger readers to know that film makers of great repute are not only ooneerned by the eritieism or a passing remark of their films but eritioism of the films of other film-makers also. Though the present day film-makers are not, somehow, bothered, about any oritieism or remarks. It is also interesting to note about the large eross section of the people involved in the debate. Anyway, we do not elaim that this book oontainl

all the debatm on film. There may be some important debates lying outside this book. We are grateful to A-joy Dey, Anjan (311060, Dfilli Prassd Ghose, Habinananda Sen, Prabir Bhattaeharya, Pranal Basu, Pravas Ghorarni, Raghabendra Chatterjee, Samik Bandopadhyayn

and Someswar Bhowmik for their kind assistsnoe.

Snkti Basu Shuvendu Dalgupta January, 1992 -.

= Gt‘) 311.3

.'

.

_

1"?L5Ml'35"

I P311151‘ Paughali Nirad C. Chaudhury,

45Satyajit Rayis

-= ‘Abidjan’

Satyajit Ray

Marie Seton, A. Rudra, Sa'tyajit*Raly‘

22 'Kflpl.11'I1SlIl O

Chidananda

'

Sarbani Gupta, Prob-odh Moitra. Sudhin Biswas.

Mahapurush

Dasgupta, Mina“ Roy,

Kumar

36 Akash Kusum Film Critic, The Statesntaa,Aal1is

Barman, Satyajit Ray, Ashis Barman, Mrinal Sen, Barua Chanda, Rajat

Roychoudhury, Satyajit Ray, Ashia Bar man, S. K. Gangully, Dilfp Dan,

Minoo Ray, Roma Chowdhury, Mriual Sen, D. K. Ghosh, Samar Mukherjce, Chintuoyr Guha Thakurta, Shanlrar Chanda, Jayanta Chandra

Roy Chaudhury, Amiya Ififlianerjee, Ipsita Chakravorty..' ltvtihir i_(uns_ar Mitra, R. Roy, Satyajit Ray, S. R. Chatterjee,

S. N.

Basu,

Sliaukat

Chanda, Nitya Gopal Chakraborty, Satyabdi Roy, Dilip Ghosh, S. Rajen, K. Bhattacharya, G. Maclteetri, Dera-

prosad Sinha, Indira $en, -Vijay, Parijst Mukherjee, Mrinal Sen, Ashis Barman. 52 Ray‘; Impgggblg Film Critic : The Statesman, Mrinal Artgfggt

Sen, Ashis

Barman,

S. Sattkaran,

'Sl1ala Public’ but not ‘Whimsical’,

Heerendranath Chatterjee ‘Q’ Eghjbiflgn gf iflm s

News & article of The Statesman Mrinal Sen, Kumar Mitra,

-

Abheelt nusupm, Rstmwtmmth

I.

i

= Gt‘) 311.3

'

F‘ -'

_‘ '

I

.

Cliattopatlliyay,Mrinalksnti Chatterjee, Chandan K. Bhattacharya. '

.r

65 Calcutta-71

I

"'i:|‘-" -1 .I :

‘

zlcslig ._.-|_

Samik Bandyoparlhyqy, . - A, 55¢?‘ Nicotinus. _ l ' . ,.

74 Au.ger&Afier Film Critic of Frontier; at filrngoer, Arunkanti Lahiri, Aveek Mazumdar, Manas Ray, Dwipanwita Roy. Mrinal Sen. Film-goer, Sreemati Gupta, Tarun

Seugupts, .- Brill -S-qs:,' . Dob

Narayan Mitre, Probodh Chakraborty, Ashok Rudra.

loo Chocolate _

Dhar

Film Critic of Frontier, Sougata

Cream

Banerjee, Kalidas Kundu, Sukla Bose,

Hunggr

Ranjan k. Banerjee.

109 R3y‘5 wajid

Ali Shah 132 $113131-anj Kg,

Khilari

Rajbans

Khanna,

Satyajit

Ray,

Rajbans Khanna. Sontcawar

Bhowmik,

K.

Raha,

Someswar Bhowmik, G, N.

15° Ritwik Ghawk Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Hiren |Gohain. Amiya Kumar Bagchi.

16o ShakhaProsakha

Chidananda Dasgupta, Satyajit Ray, Chidananda Dasgupta, Atanu Dey, A. Ghosh, Anindita Mulrherjee, Haridas Chakflbarti, Andrew _R,obi.n-

son, Chidsnanda Dasgupta. '_Sul:anti

Dutta, Snwagat Gauguly, Debashis Sen,

Pradeep

Banerjee,

Manoj

Banerjee, Dhruva Gupta fit Karnal

Jalanii - '1’}'_8' Contemporary Satyajit

'Fi1m.Ma];¢;_-5 '-

LLB hfldiadev

Dgsgupta,~Shyam Benegal Mani kaul & Jahau Borua

GL1: U-':. F.

'.

Pather Panchali Sir. James Cowlay's account of the reception to Parker Panehoii in London prompts mete say something which has been on my mind ever since the film made its appearance. My young friend Satyajit Ray‘s achievement is a very fine one, but I have wondered why in connexion with it no refe-rence has ever been made to the novel and its author, my-

late friend Bibhuti Bhushan Banerji. Three-quarters of the greatness of the film is due to the book. Qualities of a great novel are usually lost in a film version, as the film War and Peace made me feel over again. Never have Iseen a great story made of tawdry. But the: novel Father Panchali is of another kind, it is strongest in

its visual evocations, not only of the scenes but even of emotions. It is essentially a book produced by the eye,Satyajit Ray's artistic genius lies in seeing this, and‘ not" allowing adventitious interests to spoil the film. ldo not" thinkany other film-producer in India would have seen~any-thing in the novel as material for a film. The novel itself is regarded by mo as one of the-three; greatest novels in the Bengali language. if not the greatest. Certainly, if Ihad to choose two Bengali novels only, I' would include Parker Panehaii but not any other novel; even by Tagore and Sarat Chandra Chatterjee, and the greatness" of Father Pancitaii is of the order the greatness of any masterpiece by Tolstoy, Dostoyevslty, Stendhal, Balzac and the great English novelists. I was probably the first man to see the book when it was being _writtea. My friend showed it to me when only a few

plgm bad been putiin shape. He used to reproach me with-I

= Clo 31¢:

3 FILM PDLEMIICS

being rathet unenthusiastic about his short stories, but when he read those pages to me there was no qualification to my enthusiasm. That was in late I923 or early I9 ‘4. In the latter year my friend left Calcutta and I did not hear about the unfinished novel for some years.

But when he came

back with it in I923 I thought he had exceeded the promise. When it was published serially it was immediately acclaimed, though I must also say that some clever young Bengali novelists sneered at it as a ‘botanical novel‘. I am proud that I am connected with this episode in the history of Bengali literature. I thought that the only weak part of the book was the last, in which he described the life of the family after it had

left the village. But l could not persuade my friend to omit 1; Hi; mind was working on a larger theme, the story of a #11133; boy in different environments, in fact his own life. That story was carried on in Aparajita, a very moving book,

but certainly not equal to the earlier work. I knew many of the episodes of Apnrqftta before they were put in the novel, because they were told to me by my friend as incidents of his own life. I hope one day I shall be able to tell the story of the man, for he was no less great in his way than hi=novel. Nirad C. Chaudhuri Delhi, February 10. 1953 The Statesman, February lb, 1953

C1 Sir... Ihave read with interest my old friend Mr. Nirad C. Chaudhurils letter in The Statesman of February lti, coneet-ning the film Parker Panehalt and its literary source. Mr. Chaudhury begins with a misstatement. Most of the English reviews of Patber Pain-halt mention the book on

whiehit -was based. The reason why they do not enlarge on its meries is-a simple one: no. translation of this Bengali -and-no appreisementiof Bibhtnibhneln -(not-even byi

GL1 31¢

PAT!-[BR PANCIHALI 3

Mr. Chaudhuri) exist in the English language. Does Mr. Chaudhury realize that it is the film of Father Panoltalt which for the first time aquaints the western world with Bibhutibhusan ‘l Mr. Chaudhuri might at -least have credited me with having provided the first universally comprehe-_n-r sible "translation"' of his friend’s masterpiece. But whatever the merit of Bibhutibhusan‘s work as a novel—-and I agree with Mr. Chaudhuri’s assessment of itthe fact remains that a novel—however "visual"—-can never be a film scenario, just as a play can never he a libretto, but can only serve as the basis of one. lam sure Mr. Chaudhury acknowledges the excellence of the Verdi-Boito version of Othelo.

Would he seriously

contend that three-quarters of the credit should go to Shakespeare. Satyajit Ray, New Delhi, February 22, 1958 The ftatesrnan, March 2, I958

= G0 31¢

Satyajit Ray’s ‘Abhijan’ By Marie Seton Some people have commented that a film director of Satyajit Ray’s standing should not spend his major artistic

talents on a plot such as that of .»ilaFti_i'an ;. or as someone put it, "a plot that is basically that of a gangster film.‘ l disagree with this reasoning because quite frequently in cinema -especially the Indian cinema—vcry important plots

or themes come to life on the screen in so artificial, or propagandistic, a manner as to appear of little or no consequence. Dccasionally—and Abidjan is a case in p-oint—a plot which could very easily be made into a most cliche-ridden film evolves into one which becomes important because of the

depth of human understanding that has been injected into it. In a work of art it is the particular handling of the theme, as

well as the ‘theme itself, which decides whether it will be a great work or one that nobody is ever going to remember. Slukespeafis Hamlet It is probably true that very few people, except Shakespearean scholars, realise that there was a pre-Bhaltespeare

version of Hamlet and that, therefore, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which has lived as one of the greatest of plays,-resulted from a revision and rewrite of an inferior original. The original -l‘ve never read or seen it --was probably crude melodrama. What Shakespeare created from coarse material is the meet compelling psychological study of the conflict within Hamlet himself and of the intensifying of the relationship between his mother and his uncle who, having murdered his brother,

married his sister-in-law and thus gained the throne. Hamlet a legendary prince of ancient Denmark, has survived as a real‘ man riven by deep conflict of mind and being. The Hamlet

= Clo 31¢:

s1-vartr any-s

s

type of person exists everywhere in varying degress-the man who sees the need for action but keeps hesitating because of his concience and his torment. ‘What is often forgotten today is that Shakespeare, the author, rewrote the original play in an age of transition between the Middle Ages dominated as they were by stable, if narrow, traditions and the onset of our own modern age when individualism became a force in the lives of more

people than ever before. Today, all over the world, there has come again an age of transition when there are enormous shifts in the whole social structure, so that in various places where the upper classes have not been wiped out, member of these upper-classes have, nevertheless, sunk economically and socially in the social scale. At the sametime in countrim where there is still predominantly a capitalist pattern of society, individuals from the lower stratas—-econo-

mically speaking—have risen on the basis of merit or drive into the intellectual class or into the noveau rtche, the group with the economic power. In Ray's Aoiziian, the hero, Narsingh, of Rajput origin, has fallen in the social and economic scale so that he has become a taxi driver. {Paris has been full of ex-Princes driving taxies ever since the Russian Revolution of 1917 because thme former princes had never been trained for any work that suited the change-over in the society which produced them). Du the other hand, Narsingh’s newly-acquired friend, Joseph, is the grandson of a Harijan who became a Christian in the same village where Narsingh‘s grandfather was a Rajput of importance. (One of the most perceptive things in the

casting of these two roles is to have chosen a fair-toned actor for Narsingh and a dark-toned actor for Joseph-a casting that visualises something that is generally true and reflects the original Aryan conquest and the colour spectrum of the caste system).

= Clo 31¢:

s FILM 1*dLBHt'tts ‘Beatnik’ and ‘Slilyagl’

The Shakespearean age all over Europe produced its quota of Angry Young Men and mixed-up youth, of whom Hamlet is an example.

Today, it is the whole world which has its

quota of Angry Young Men who are deeply plagued by the question of how to adjust, live and survive in the midst of societies which are in varying degree in a state of transition. Traditional values have been shattering blows everywhere. Yet a new morality has not been stabilized. On the one hand, the immensely prosperous United States produces beatniks ; on the other, the rapidly advanced socialist society of the Soviet Union has been faced with the problem of what to do with young Teddyboy hooligans, the stilyagi, something

which in Socialist, or Marxist theory, was supposed to be the exclusive disease oi capitalist society. Let us allow that the rest of the world, including communist countries {but not China), on the one hand, and the newly emerging nations of Asia and Africa, on the other, lie psychologically and economically between the two leading blocs, one representing free enterprise and the other, public ownership of industries.

Because of the breaking up of the

traditional everywhere, all people of the world {with per-

haps the exception of a few isolated tribal people) have the problem of the corrupt and rapacious individual (Sukhanram, the businessman in Abhiian).

The insecure younger indivi-

dual (who, particularly when disillusioned, is tempted to seek success by aligning himself with the corrupt but strong—because established—authority everywhere) is, in practice, most

singularly foolish, and tends to kick around the maladjusted individual from lack of human insight rather than calculated and organised brutality or callousness. This is what Narsingh has experienced before he meets Sukhanram, the smuggler of opium and the trader in women. There are numberless Narsinghs in the world today and to my mind

it is important that a director with the human insight of

Ctr 31¢

SATYAJIT RAYH "All-Ilil‘!|F" '7

Satyajit Ray should esplore the mind and feelings of this type of man. Action Film

Though Abhrjaa is very clearly an action film, Ray has turned it into an exploration of the thoughts and feelings of Narsingh who is soothing with inner conflict because his efl'orts to ‘go straight’, despite his violence of temperament have landed him into seeming failure. At tho opening, he can he seen not to fit in so that he is ripe for falling a pray to Sulchantattfs desire to have a taiti to transport his opium.

The film, as realised on the screen by Ray, is an attempt to present in a humanistic manner the kind of news item which states that so much opium has been found, or that such and such a girl, having been raped or enticed away, has been found in a brothel. There is scarcely a country in the world today where just this in its local form does not take place. Everywhere the peddling oi‘ dope has increased and only the variety used differs. Whether it is a "'¢fl11£irl” in one country, a "benarasi" in another, or, as in the case of Abidjan, a ‘maid servant,’ the human situation is

the same. Ray has three universal characters in his film who are very common in current society-—-S:1lchanram.the successful ‘businessman’ who is in reality st racketeer ; the girl Gulapi (Waheeda Rehman} who has become an outcast in her village because she was raped and is disillusioned that no one tried to protect her and she was merely hlamed, and Narsingh. ‘Hell to Adjust’ This disillusioned, violent Rajput who is thoroughly demoralized is not dilferent from the maladjusted scion of the Polish or British aristocracy who finds it hell to adjust to cont emporary rmlities which have shattered the economic

Clo 31¢

'3 FILM PDLEHICS

*basis of the formerly powerful family. Any such man has, on -the one hand, pride in his ancestry-—Narsinbgh is constant111’ referring to his chhatri origin-but on the other is ill"equipped to find a comparable status in a changed societySome do, but a great many don't. In Abhijnn, Narsingh (Soumitra Chatterjoe is the perceptive actor creating the role} has a longing to be "a gentleman‘ though his education,

--despite his ancestry, is defective for this role. {A large number of this world's aristocrats are remarkably under-

“educated when it comes to any kind of equal competition in the world. They have neither got an adequate intellectual training nor a training for manual work so that, as is proved

in many places in Europe, they are just the people who end up as taxi drivers or else sometimes become involved in imllflgliflg of one sort or another). l'-la.rsingh’s Rajput ‘daring’ has only got him into trouble with the mean-minded and the cxploitive.

His social difference makes him an

outsider to other taxi drivers and bus drivers. who resent him as an intruder.

He’s betwixt and between two worlds and,

thus, he is ripe to be caught in Sukhsnram’s web, though it troubles his conscience throughout. Satyajit Ray is, of course, fully aware of what he is really seeking to say in Abkfian-—that it is not necessary to become corrupt in order to survive. The moral he is seeking to point out is that if anyone can find the guts to withstand being sucked into the morass of disillusion and cynicism, there is a way to survive in the modern world and still preserve in-

tegrity. Or, if a person can tear himself loose-—-as Narsingh finally does—thero must be a way to find some stability that is not based on corruption, There are a lot of directors today

who would resolve the Abhijun story as the French director, Clouaot, resolved the notaltcgcther dissimilar action film,

Wages of Fear-that is to say, with the death of the daring hero. But Ray is a humanist. So he resolves the conflicts of Narsinghrin terms of hope. Hope that he can build a stable

G0 gin’

SATYAJIT RAY‘! "ABHII1\H" 9

life with Gulapi, who comes to mean something to him and who has the strength to resist condoning Narsingh’s succem -on the basis of opium smuggling, even though she lovm him. As might be expected the film is extremely effective in its cinematic qualities. Probably it is the best lighted and photographed film of all of Ray's pictures. His music is exceptionally interesting and all the acting is wonderful.

There is not a detail of the production itself which leaves anything to be desired. Hut transcending the artistry of the film, there is the vitality of what it says about people and their behaviour. I really cannot see why a major director—-and Ray isshould not attempt to reach a wider public and present this essentially humanistic approach through the medium of an

action story which is not highbrow and whic'1 in essence is a topical story.

HIIIIIIJIS1 Artist

Some months ago, Ray commented that he did not think he would be winning any more international awards because he was not in line with the New Wave trend and had no

intention of seeking to be. This trend, while it is extremely exciting from the point of view of the visual side of cinema, is philosophically slanted in the direction of despair and it

presents a desperate cynicism. At this time, Ray said t 'l'rn a Humanist”, and added that

in the history of all the arts, the Humanist artist had seldom if ever, been fashionable. However, it is, and always has been, the Humanist artist who has been able to create irrespectivc of what was fashionable. Abidjan is not in any way a ‘fashionable’ film. It may never win an award, but it may prove to be a film of depths so far as its characters are concerned and be one of Ray's films to appeal a wider audience than miny of his pictures. It is extremely rare to find a film which can have an appeal

Clo git:

IUTHJII PBLEHIIES

to a mass audience who want action pictures. and at the same time hold the attention of more cinematically cultured audiences who want art in the cinema. If Ray has succeeded in achieving this, then he has created an important film as well as said something of immediately vital social value. Abhljan has a moral force in that it serves as a protest against

the Angry Young man being finally demoraliscd and broken in as an ally of the corrupted and exploitive, Mainstream Oct. 13, I962

- GL1 Oi F.

Satyajit Ray’s Optimism A. auosa. I have not yet had the chance to see Ahkllan and therefore I shall have nothing to say about its cinematic qualities. Dnce I see it, probably l shall agree with everything Marie Seton says about these particular qualities, excepting that it is very likely that I shall find his music rather exceptionally

poor instead of being exceptionally interesting. But Marie Seton speaks much more about "lFi*ality of

what it says about people and their behaviour --that transcends the artistry of the film." She also talks about ‘the

moral force in that it serves as a protest against the angry young man being finally demoralised and broken in as an= ally of the corrupted and exploitive." As a matter of fact,. in her whole article she says very little about the cinematic

qualiti of the film and much more about the problems of" modern man, problems arising from the breaking down of traditional values. I may. therefore, be excused ifl completely igno "e the cinematic qualities of the film and makea few observations on the moral questions raised by her. Marie Seton uses the

word

"humanistn”

in a very

curiously incorrect sense. According to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the word “humanism” stands for ‘any system of thought or action which assigns a predominant interest to» the afl'airs of man as compared with the supernatural or the abstract,”

What she probably means by “humanism” is just

optimism regarding the future of humanity, or an optimistic attitude towards ‘la condition humaine.” One wondershow a distinguished writer like Marie Seton could make such. an elementary semantic error. One can very well be a humanist in the proper sense of the word and yet be a pmsirnist regarding the future of humanity or about ‘lit condition humaine”. Bertrand Russell, among many others,. is extremely perturbed, if not pessimistic, about the futurecf humanity. Does it, therefore, follow that he is not a.

Clo 31¢

I2 FILM POLE-MICE

humanist ? Fellini, for one, could be described as one who is ‘philosophically slanted in the direction of despair” and cynicism ,; mist because Cabiria is let down to begin with, letdown to end with and let down all the way through ‘i

Strindberg was very much less of an optimist than Ibsen was, but certainly it could not be said that he was any less a

humanist.

Creative Art Marie Seton also makes a very curious statement. ‘However, it is, and always has been, the humanist artist who has been able to create ” Does she imply that non—hum-

anist artists have not been able to create '? The Gothic Cathedrals were not built by humanists, nor the paintings in the caves of Ajanta. Michael-Angelo was not a humanist, nor Fra Angelico. Her "statement is wrong even if we were to interpret her use of the word "humanism" as ‘optimism’. The pathetic symphony of Tchaikovsky is very gloomy indeed, yet it is a great work of art. Bruegel, as well as Dean Swift, took very dismal views of the human fate, but did they not create great art 1’

Marie Seton alleges that Ray told her: "In the history of all arts the humanist artist had seldom, if ever, been .fshionab1e". What a curious statement I Most of the great artists since the Renaissance have been humanists. Even if ‘humanism’ is to be understood in the curious sense of

"optimism" about “la condition humaine”, that is, the attitude opposite to pessimism and cynicism--even then the statement,

as it stands, is incorrect. What about Chaplin '2 Countless members of persons have recovered faith in life and overcome their cynicism and despair since they said that magnificient and sublime work of art--Limelight. What about De Sica and the trend that followed him for a while T What about Sartre ? What about Picasso ? Names could be multiplied, but is it rmlly necessary ‘l It is totally and utterly

Clo 31¢

BATYAJIT RATS DFHHISH I3

wrong to suggest that most European producers and other artists are sliding down to cynicism and despair.

Fact of life The truth is somewhat dilferent. Every mathematician knows that there are certain problems in mathematics that just do not have any solution ( Example; Fermats famous last theorem on the theory of numbers J.

Similarly, every

grown-up man, who has lived through life and not glided on

the surface of it, knows that there are certain problems of life that just do not have any solution. And yet one has

to live.

Recognition of this basic fact does not constitute

pessimism. On the othcrhand, the attitude of ignoring it, of assuming that life could really lie all smooth, that all pro-

blems of life could really be solved if only one were to be more understanding and gather together a suficient dose

of goodwill, is either naive or sheer intellectual dishonesty, or both.

If the crisis is a modern phenomenon, that is because, as Marie Seton herself observes, traditions are breaking down everywhere. Integrity in life was preserved until modern times by mere tradition and religion or both.

Integrity was

possible as long as man did not ask "Why", but just followed taboos and injunctions. The modern man sees through the game, sees that religion is just sham and traditions have no basic sanction. He can therefore act in anyway whatsoever. As brother Karmaaov cried out in agony, ‘If God does not

exist, any crime would be permissible.‘

"I

No Answer Yet Of course that means disintegration and corruption. Hut what is there to save modern man from this disintegration and corruption“ This is the problem that has been causing anguish to many European film producers and other intellectuals. It cannot be said that any of them has found any. answer to the question,_and it depends on the temperament of the individual producer whether to depict this human

= Clo 31¢:

EH FILM PULEMICB

-

situation as tragic or comic.-the problem remaining unresolved in any case. To use the word ‘fashionable’ in this

connection is less than fair. There is no justification at all -ts. questioning the integrity or seriousness of purpose of producers like Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, Alain Rs-anal; and Rene Claire. It would indeed be wonderful if any of the producers "were to succeed in pointing out the way to us—poor lost -modern souls-—the way out of corruption and disintegration. Marie Seton suggmts that Ray, being ‘humanist’ (that is, -optimist '1' ), could do so. I do not know whether Ray has succeeded in Abktlan in conveying artistically as well as -convincingly any moral message concerning the complex -problems and agonies that afflict modern man. But it can certainly be said that in none of his earlier films has he given any evidence of any comprehension of these problems or of -any capacity or inclination to tackle them. Excepting Devi and Kanchanjnnga, he has chosen for each of his films "themes that contain no problems and no conflicts whatso-

-ever. In Devi he does boldly take up a problem of int. portance to our society, but it certainly has nothing to do -with modern man's problem of sliding into despair and cyni-cism. In Kancnanjttnga, for the first time, Ray takes up a ‘modern’ problem, and if one is to judge by this film, Ifor ~one would find it very difficult indeed to believe in Satyajit =Ray’s capacity to tackle tne problems of modern tnan.

Three Problems .

F

In Kan hanfunga Ray indeed vey bravely brings in the

very heart of his theme-three problems of the modern man and woman of India, via., (i) the conflict given rise to by the fact of young men and women becoming Bflflfliflug of that

right and need of free association and romance and yet being "forced by social conditions to marry and cohabit with absolute strangers; (ii) the infinitely complex human relations of .||.

.: |.|-ea

1

-

'

I

Cti git:

"'

-

BATYAJTT RATS l'.llIl'l|'ItI3- 15!

pride, prejudice, optimism and -humiliation in a middle 4!‘-.lsss society that is more snobbish and more stratified, classwise as well as castewise, than probably any community any-where in the world, and (iii) lastly, the problem of broken marriages, that are not acknowledged as being broken and arecontinucd indefinitely in their soul killing ugliness and

ghastliness. But how do-es Ray tackle the problems ? He obviously wants to treat them humanistically ( that is, optimistically g ) Does Ray manage to express the anguish of the young girl who is about to be sacrificed at the matrimonial altar Z’ His optimistic treatment consists in showing that ultimately the girl does manage to give up security in favour of love. Hut the essential tragedy of the situation is that she will have to, later on, sometime or other, give up love for security. For women, being bearers of children, have to have security and the social conditions in India are such that it is often very difficult to combine love with security, and given the choice,

love has necessarily to be sacrificed. But Ray, being an optimist, does not allow this grim reality to caste any shadow -on the happy ‘release’ of the girl from the sacrificial altar l

The moral he wants to point out, obviously, is that if a girl prefers love to security, she could actually achieve it. This, however, is not true.

Truth Missed Again, being ‘humanist ', Ray dislikes that class and caste differences should divide human beings and hence leaves the problem of the lower middle class young man caught in an upper middle class circle with a hint that while the older generation is really evil (opportunism on the one side and unqumtioned chieftaincy on the other}, the differences could be resolved if only the younger generation were to get together. No doubt the young rich girl is incerc ininviting the young

une_mp_loyed_ boy to her_ place and .i.tt he; desire to be friends

Clo git:

16 FILM POLEMIQ

with him. But once again, Ray mines out the essential‘ tragedy of the situation, namely, that the conditions of life are such that (saving exceptions) this very young girl will‘ one day grow into the typical snobbish society lady despiaing the lower classes, and this very young man would grow into the very same greedy, greasy opportunist that his old father is. As to matrimonial difficulty, Ray’: optimism shows an even more facile way out. The unhappy couple meet under a tree, exchange a few words of goodwill, and, hey presto l the problems, which were not solved during the last ten years of married life, get solved, or nearly so, as if by magic, or" more probably, by the benign influence of the natural beauty

oi‘ the Kanchanjunga. Here is a situation where a womanhas been in love with a man hut was forced to marry another and who has carried an illicit relations with the earlier one all

through these ten married years 1 Day after day, year after year, the couple have undergone the ghastly and obscene experience of quarrelliog with, hating and suspecting each

other during the day and copulating at night. Yet theanguish, the bitterness and the agony that this soul killing experience has meant for them does not get any expression whatsoever in the film.

Tragic Flower

_

Oi course the result of even such obscene copulation can be quite beautiful-—-and Ray does not fail to take cinematic advantage of the possibility. He makes the result -the child—-a particularly sweet one The sweet innocent child passed up and down before the spectators and before the unhappy

couple--a beautiful flower—1ilte symbol of

the union, a flower it would be a pity to trample underfoot f

But once again Ray passes over the essential tragedy ol‘ the situation, namely, that this sweet little child who does not understand today will understand one day, and then, she will

cease -to be sweet, she will cease to he happy, she will

Clo 31¢

SATYAIIT lUi.Y'S DPTIMIBM 17

become unhappy, gloomy and full of complexes. It is a very convenient cliche used by all unhappy couples who have not got the honesty and the guts to get separated, that a broken marriage is harmful for the child.

Nobody, how-

ever, has compared the harm done to a child by the breaking up of a marriage with the harm done to it by being brought

up in the poisonous atmosphere of an unhappy marriage. Obviously, there is no way out of the tragic destinies of these modern characters until and unless one changes the very social conditions. One could have taken Kouclionjungo

as a seriously optimistic film if it were shown that the characters were trying to

find ways out for themselves

through conciously changing the constricting and inhibiting environmental conditions, of course, to the extent possible. But nothing like that is done.

Problems are posed, and they

get simply resolved, by themselves, and the only factor accounting for the miracle seems to be the magnificicnt

beauty of the kanchanjunga 1 If this is to be the way Ray would like to be humanist (that is, optimist 1), there is indeed very little we can hope for from him in the line of treatment of modern problems. It may be pointed out that Chaplin, afterall, always ended his films in a hopeful vein (Charlie vanishing down the road holding the hand of the accidentally-met,equally—desoIate— and—lost female character) and yet did not never really resolve any problem.

But that would be quite an irrelevant

comparison. Chaplin never posed any problem of modern man l He depicted, poetically, that condition of the nontnodern man in a modern society, the outsider, the one who does not belong. But Satyajit Ray has posed problems in Kunchunjurigu ; and (according to Marie Seton) has resolved

in Abidjan, the problems of the modern Angry Young Man in terms of hope l Mainstream

Nov. 3, 1962

Fihn—2 = Clo glc

Satyajit Answers Critic This is apropos of Sri A. Rudra’s rejoinder (Mainstream Nov. 3)

to Marie S:ton’s review of my film Abhifan

(Mainstream, Oct, 13).

Sri Rudra hasn’t yet seen Ahhtjian and therefore decides, very wisely, to ‘completely ignore the cinematic qualities of the film, and to use the occasion rather to air his views on some of my other films, on films and film-makers in general,

as well as on such topics as humanism, Charlie Chaplin, the problems of modern man, etc. lshall have Sri Rudra to split semantic hairs with Miss Seton over the definition of

humanism, and stick to matters that relate more directly to films. Part of Sri Rudra’s tirade, l’m sorry to say, is based on

statements wrongly attributed to me by Miss Seton, For instance, lnever said ‘in the history of all the arts, the humanist artist had seldom if ever been fashionable’ for the

simple reason that I don't believe it to be true. Marie Seton also quotes me as saying that I thought I was not going to win any more international awards because I had no intention of aligning myself with the new wave trend-a trend which l'm supposed to have characterised as being ‘philosophically slanted in the direction of cynicism and despair.‘ This is not true, for I don’t think despair and cynicism are dominant traits of the New Wave trend. Although basically existentialist in outlook, a good many of

the best New Wave films are marked by qualities of wit and warmth and gaiety. ln my case, ldon’t believe cynicism and despair are qualities which necessarily find favour with festival judges. Also my feeling about international awards

-or more correctly, about international markets-is

= Clo 31¢

SATYAJIT Al\Il‘W% '¢RI'l'lC' H

on the phenomenon of the changing ‘long’ of flflfllingntfl films. This has nothing to do with content, and refers" only to the externals of form. lknow quite a number of films which even five years ago would have been dismissed by the average filmgoer as avant-garde esotericism, but which are now finding wide popular acceptance. ‘The popular success of a film like Martenbad—by all accounts it deliberate, sustained two-hour exercise in arty cbfuscatig|1._ is so mysterious that one can only attribute it to a sudden wide spread epidemic of fashionable snobbery. And as long as this epidemic looks, I surmise that comparatively straight

forward films ( such as mine are obliged to be in the context of I ndian conditions) will be found to be at a disadvantage in Europe.

Not all of Sri Rudra‘s comments, however, arise out of Marie Seton‘s rnisquotations.

At one point Sri Rudra talk

about the depiction in films of the problems of modern man. Referring to my film in this context,Sri Rudra says. "In none of his earlier films has he given any evidence ofany comprehension of these problems or of any capacity

or inclination to tackle them "

The very next sentence

reads “Excepting Devi and .lt'ancha»jungha,he has chosen

for each of his films themes that contain no problems and no conflicts whatsoever".

Assuming this to be true, may I

ask Sri Rudra how, in the absence of such problems, the

question of ‘comprehension’ and ‘capacity to tackle‘ arises ‘l Sri Rudra mentions some European directors to whom,

he says, the problem of saving modern man from disintegration and corruption has been causing great anguish. Rene Clair, we are told, is one such director. For Sri Rudra‘s information, Clair has made only two films in the past ten years

of which the more recent—-made three years ago—-is a comedy concerning a supposed elixir of life, set in an imaginary island. Mr. Clair's anguish must be a very private and confidential one. Ingmar Bergman, Sri Rudra says, is another such director. "Of.-the ten' films made by

Clo 31¢

m

.|

Bergman. in the last five years, only three are laid in the present century and even these .cannot be said to deal with specifically modern problems. _

And does Sri Rudra really regard Cabtrta as a film of

modern man‘s despair and cynicism Z‘ Cahlrra is a touching film, and obviously the work of a modern director ; but what’s so modern, thematically, a prostitute seeking love and gym-

pnthy and finding disillusionment ‘l Incidentally, Sri Rudra seems to have forgotten that even Cahlria ends on a note of ‘hope’ (Humanism '1’ Optimism’ '5' ).

Let him try and recall

the famous last scene : the dolefuldown-and-outCabiria walking the dark lonely street, her face slowly suffused with a. smile as she sights a group of gay youngsters singing and dancing their way back from a picnic, and her slow but sure falling in step with the merry-makers at the final fadeout.

Admittedly not a ‘solution’, but something much more valid ; a ‘resolution’, in artistic terms; a modulation, as it were, to 3 bright, hopeful key from the key of dark despair that has dominated the rest of the film. To me this is ‘optimistic’,

and not one hit false.

On this night, at this moment, Cabiria

has won back the will to live, and she is happy.

We know

and I think she knows too, that the happiness is short lived and illusory. But does it matter 2" Of course she will yet want to be loved and Yet be disillusioned, time and again, by man after heartless man, until the tricks of her trade grow rusty, and age dooms the indomitable in her. But need we look beyond the point of resolution and speculate ? Of course, the resolution may seem unsatisfactory, as it does to Sri Rudra i.n Kaachanjanglia. But l should have thought the very elements of the film—the near fairy-tale setting, the holiday mood, the two-hour span of the narrative, the fact that the characters have been divorced from their normal surroundings—-would debar expectation of a realistic thrasing out of the problems. lsubmit that the resolution

of the various conflicts in Kaachanjtoigha is valid, and is meant to be valid only in the context of this particular

= Clo 31¢

SATYAIIII‘ AHSWER.S GllII'IC 11

narrative. Of course, Sri Rod ra has very right to dislike and dismiss the story, but to run it down for the wrong reasons is, to say the least, imperceptive. l’m afraid Sri Rudra will have to search long and hard for the kind of film that he’s looking for i the vast lumbering saga in which every problem will be thrashed out, every

-character, every emotional conflict developed and played out, each to its ultimate limit ; in which the sweet little child who

does not understand today will, as Sri Rudra puts it, ‘understand one day, and then she will cease to be sweet, she will become unhappy, gloomy and full of complexes.’ One last whispered word of caution before I close : Sri Rudra would be well advised not to comment in writing on music—heard or unheard—until he is well past the stage of adulating Tchaikowsky. Satyajit Ray, Mainstream,

Nov. ll‘, 1962

Co 31¢

Kapurush O Mahapurush cnmawaana ms cums Madhabi lvlukherjee’s eyes are treated in two different ways in Cliarulata; they are calm and without accent until the fabulous swing scene, when she becomes aware, for the first

time, of her forbidden love. Then, suddenly, they go dark, and the pupils shine, like a tigress’s. lo Kapurush, she has the same look—-except in the flashbacks. But this is not the sole point of resemblanze between the two films; it is the symptom of a projection of the same central character,

placed in the same situation. It is almost as if her husband’s brother has come back, after having fled from her, and after she has reconciled herself to the dull and even tenor of her life with her husband.

Once more he is irresistibly drawn

towards her, and once more he finds himself incapble of defying society. As he asks her what would happen if he took more than two of the sleeping pills she has just given him, she mocks him gently, saying, “I do not think you will

do that". Why does she give him the whole of the phial, instead of just the pills that she asks him to take ‘l To see if he would end his life, and show more courage than he had when he had turned her down for lack of it ‘l How unafraid she is of the consequences if he were to be found dead on his bed, carrying some evidence, among his things, of their past love ?

Perhaps the drama, the excitement of it would

break the monotony of her existence, and give her, for the first time, the satisfaction of being loved, even at the cost of

life ? And does he not know, when he returns the phial to her at the station in the evening, with the light and the-

nohe of the train creeping up on them that she is capableor taking that overdose which would end for her a lile that

- GL1 Oi F.

1-tawttustt o ttsnarxntosa zahas been snuffed out, finally, by his visit and.by-the Ear which wipes out the smile on his face as he thinks that she might, after all, decide to come away with him ( if he doesthink so, for her face shows no such intent; it is drawn with pain and the knowledge of inevitability } ‘E’

Times have changed; there is nothing of the ninegeenth century in Kapurush. The husband is not inspired by noble causes, but is a mere Boxwallah { an unconvincing one too; overdrawn, sometimes grossly ) The young man no longer leaves out of loyalty for his noble brother. But ‘the position

of the woman who is married to one man and love another, has not changed. For her, everything has, in the essence, remained the same. The only difference time has made for her is in giving her the ability to seek out her lover and to

propose marriage to him on her own initiative.

In Malian-

near she had sought economic independence, in Char-ulara

her right to love; Kapurush reflects her failure to find either. It is no accident that Madhabi Mukherjec plays the woman in all three : it is only right, for it is, basically, thesame

woman. In Ray's films she has come to represent the middleclam Bengali woman taking a good look at herself, her rights, her position in a changing society. Her face has a profound quier stirred by subterranean currents not altogether apparent and contradictions and ambiguities hidden behind its impassi-

vity

Travelling in the jeep, Sournitra stares endlessly at the

back of her head, shrouded by a checkered scarf, unil it begins to look like the head of a snake, poised to stike.

The

eyes, masked by dark glasses reflected in the driving mirror, make her look deadly. But when she turns away from him at the station, she is no longer the tigress or the snake, but just a broken woman, the white spots on her dark shawl shining iike stars as she walks away, melting into the evening.

Once more she has sought to break out of the prison of her life-as she had done in Mabaaagar and Ct'taralara—-and once more she has failed. For it is not easy for the Indian

woman to become an individual in her own right, and to find happiness of her own making.

= G0 31¢

at FEM Potniattbs

,

Kapurash never attains the exquisite, miniature-like perfection of Cltaraiata, but becomes meaningful in the further

-exploration of a significant theme which has been seriously exercising the mind of Satyajit Ray for some time

Not Full-Blooded In the title Kapurush appears first, and that is the order in which I have taken it, although the film opens with Mahapurush, and l can see why. lt would have been difli-

oult to take the half-hearted horseplay of the latter after

the poignancy of the first. The comedy is too cold-blooded to cleanse us of the spell of gloom cast by Kapuruslt. I have chosen to review the films in reverse order because I could not bring myself to opening with Mahapurush, having much

more to say about the other. This is not due to any inherent perference for the romantic ; it is just becausel find Ray's humour rather lacking in that full-blooded, vital laughter

which alone can make comedy come alive.

It is always

rather half-hearted; half his mind goes forward to it, the

other holds him back in acute self-consciousness. It is slightly awkward like a good bawdy joke spoilt by embarrassment. Tagore could not have written Btrtnohl Baba, and Satyajit

is closer in spirit to Tagore than to Rajshekhar Bose or, for that matter, his own father, the great humourist Sukumar Ray. Not that Mahaparush is without humor.

There are some

pretty weird scenes and some goozl laughs, as in the shots of Birinchi Babe. holding his foot out, the big toe delicately curled outward, to enable his admirers to touch it in passing as the train pulls out of the station ; of him again, showing

a moist, round, flaccid tongue as his eyes bulge and his hands are held above his head, ready to go into a trance ; of his

open-mouthed victims. one crawling on all fours in a freshly laundered suit, another perpetually sprawled out in flaccid half-nudity ; of the conniving assistant eyeing the pretty girl across the room. But the laughs, coming at longish inter-

Gr) 31¢

KAHJRUSH O MAHAPURUSH 25

vals, do not compensate for the general lack of momentum, the denial of slapstick at moments which cry out for it. Robi Ghosh struts about absurdly with his heavenly extra arms strapped on his chest like monstrous projections ; but when he turns every now and then, the wooden hands do not hit anyone on the head even when they could hardly avoid doing so. The whole scence of the scientist boiling the grass in the hope of inventing some wonderful food value which would abolish hunger for ever, falls fiat on its face. The dialogue of the original text is repeated without any of the eflbct of explosive verbal slapstick of which the early Rajshekhar Bose was such a master. ' For once it becomes difficult to see the film without being

actually aware of the excellence of its literary original, but this does not mean that those who have read it will not

enjoy the film altogether, not to speak of those who have not taken on its own terms, Mnlrapuruslt can be enjoyed, if not hailed as a masterpiece It is only in the choice of subject that one sees a connection in this film with Ray’s general outlook. He had treated the subject of religious superstition in Debt, and shown the process of its destruction of a woman’s life. In so far as it exercises the ghost of blind faith and convention, it takesthe side of progress, and exposes the forces that hold back the fulfilment ofthe individual. ln Debt, the treatment was grim and Ray did not get away with it with the mass audience or even the general run of journalists ; here he might because of tho inherent humour of the situation. As in Charalata, the subject is fraught with danger in our

cinema, but escapes detonation by the avoidance of the

head-on conflict, by the way he skirts around the dynamite making us well aware of it, and probably bring the moment of ignition just a little nearer. Humour is a wonderful weapon with which to attack superstition ; the trouble is that

Ray does not wield it nearly as well as when he shows us the tragic consequences of it. N~‘-"t'- 14-5-55

= Clo 31¢

Satyajit's Latest I thank Mr. Chidananda Das Gupta for bringing out the thoughbprovolcing

point

underlying

Mr. Satyajit Ray‘s

Mflkflflflser, Chnrnfnrn and Kopnrush, namely, the position Bf Bengali women in a changing society, her rights and limitations. ‘It is not easy for the Indian woman to become

an individual in her own rights and to find happiness of her own making’—this is said to be the theme explored in these films. ‘In Mnknnegnr she sought economic independence, in Charutotn her right to love ; Kopurnsh reflects her failure to find either.’ Butl cannot fully agree with Mr. Dasgupta. What we

get in Mnhnnognr is a very wrong conception of woman's economic independence and her rights. In fact, Arati did nothing to exert her independence—she took up a job, she fiifllled the resignation letter, she withheld the resignation letter -all in abjet submission to the sweet will of

her

husband. Devoid of any sense of reality or changing time, Arati embarks upona disastrous venture by giving up her job impulsively in the face of starvation.

resignation has nothing eonobling about it.

The reason For

Had she own

economic independence herself, she would have possessed the sense of duty implied by it. As for her rights Arati is perverted.

No amount of

economic independence breeds that sense of right n a Bengali house-wife and mother by which she finds it easy to swallow the best part of the f'an1ily’s food. Wifeuttering unnecessarily, significantly too, ‘You don't have anytheing to do now‘ (in.

giying the rnaidservam’s pay) pointing to the joblessness of her husband, is something undreamt of in a Bengali woman, ]'I|dDl|1BI'--il1?1fl'ih' cleanning the eating place of Arati is possible

- Cit) glc '

-Z

KAPURUSH 0 Ill-RH-IHFRIIHI 2?

only in a satire on working women. Maltnnagar is a film neither of Bengali woman’s economic independence nor her sense of rights. What is to be understood by the right to love and itsfailure in Ckorulotn is not clear either.

Bhupati had that

much of enlightenment to make facilities for her wife tocultivate her literary faculty and Charo strode along form intellectual atlinity to the higher rung of love perfectly licentiously. Charu was least suspected by Bhupati. Even when he found out about it, his attitude was sympathetic and considerate. What more is conceived of the right to love’ ? Charu's involvement was one-side was not reciprocated-this is a state which can happen anywhere and at any time.

What

would

have happend if a married

woman’s love for somebody else would have been recipro-

cated need not be speculated on here. What is evident is that the right to love is not in the lest wanting in Charulata, rather it has made its appearance in this film much ahead of time. Perhps, there has been misuse of freedom by Charulata. Not giving a moment’s thought to Bhapati, not tryingabit to reconcile with a man who

has many good elements in his character, to be swayed by each and every impulse, to belacking in reasoning is

is neither proper love nor freedom. It‘ every little point of affinity or every little sentiment calls for a break, that will eausea retreat to savage society. Such misuse of freedom is to be condemned even to-day.

Only in Knpnrush the Bengali woman has been shown in her the colour. The girl had the strength of mind topropose, the courage to make her own decision and sufficient selfrespeet to give a rebufi' to the unworthy lover. Only in Kopurush we find and honest picture of the position of the Bengali woman. ‘That the heroine looked pulled down in the last sequence is only humane.

Sm. lvlulcherjee is exquisite when she knits her browsHer eyes suit only the expressions of s tigress or a hooded:

Clo yglc

-EFFILMPOLEMIEE

.snake—they fail to express mild, calm and amiable moods". Maybe this feature afiected the second half of Mnhnnngor,

and added to the transformation of Charu's character into en extrovert one.

Minn Roy "El

To attack someone has become something of an institu-tion is not an easy job. For there are usually two reactions to it. The critic is either ignored in contempt or called the foullest of names. In either case, he has to give up with a nasty taste in the mouth. This is probably the reason why after the resounding

-success of S-atyajit’s first two films both at home and abroad, there has rarely been sound and balanced criticism of his -subsequent productions Every new film of his has been greeted with wondrous admiration. Critics have raved over individual shots, total effect, depth of ideas, intricacy of plots and what have you. Yet there is growing awareness among sensitive film-goers that all is not well with Satyajit’s later films. images are wearing ofi' through repetition, plots are awfully limited, and the range of ideas does not really

meet our expectation of adirector of his stature. deterioration became obvious in

Mnhnnngor,

The

Ctltnrulotn,

despite its artistic richness, did not totally blot out that that impression Kapurnsh O Mahnpnrush, also, nearly convinces the discriminating film-goer that fears of Satyajit‘: decline are not unfounded.

This is perhaps the only Satyajit film that has not swept reviewers off their feet.

There has been a certain lack of

-warmth in the praise showered on it.

Apologies have been

made for the comparative superficiality of the stories. First class technique or competent acting or imaginative

direction does not make a great film. The cinema today has come to be regarded as a serious art-form and hence a great film must have something significant to say. 'l{" is an indifl'erent story. The message, if there was meant to be any

Clo git:

KAPURUSH o tastmruaostt seis trite. A girl loves a boy poorer than herself ; hypergamy is contemplated. Then the girl's parents arrange a marriage for her. She rushes to the boyfriend and implores him tomarry her at once. The boy has no money and asks for time. The arranged marriage takes place. Years later the boy accidentally meets his old flame and her husband. Husbanddrinks. The ex-boyfriend surmises the wife it not happy, and asks her to go away with him. But she does not. lt has been suggested that this is part of Satyajit’s larger picture of the modern woman asserting her rights—this filmdealing with the right to love. But what actually happens ‘l The girl goes away in a huff because the boy asks for timeand submits to her parents‘ wishes. ls this the way to assert the right to love ‘l Wouldn’t it have been utterly foolhardy of the boy to marry her then and there and land her in a hell ofa mess f On the other hand, if the boy’s behaviour makesher think it has been no true love on his part, then all that goes on between them later seems totally pointless. Apart from this basic weakness, there are quite a few patches in the film which are unconvincing. The boy asks ex-girlfriend

for a sleeping pill. She gives him a whole-

phial. The boy says, ‘Supposing I take all of them‘. Goodness me| This is no callow college youth but a hardened salesman who has been cauterised by an emotional disappointment. It isabsurd for him to act like that. Also the girl" who, we are told by implication, has learnt from experienceand built up a defensive armour of a sort, behaves equally

childishly at times. lt‘s quite silly of her to refuse the omelette because the boy did the same. In the last scene she ispathetically melodramatic. After treating the ex-boyfriend with supreme indifference for two days. she comes trotting along to the station to get back her phial of sleeping pills. Apparently she could not get another phial anywhere. If‘ there is more to it than this unlikely explanation, it is hardly consistent with mature behaviour. Finally the poor husband. A boxwallah all over. It'?e

- Gt)

an 1"".-

I FILM" POLBMICS

all right for him td play golf in the morning and knock back large quantities of whisky. But surely to plunge unnecessarily into a discussion of the need to observe social distinctions while audibly smacking his lips is a bit off. For heaven's sake, let‘s give the devil his due. A boxwallah may not be all ideal companion but he is rarely as gross as this husband fellow.

While ‘K.’ lacks in maturity, ‘M’ is a trifle wooden. About this film I am by and large in agreement with Mr. Das Gupta. The best thing about the film is of course the killingly funny dialogue for which little credit goes to the director. Nibaran is thoroughly impressive. There is however a streak of vulgarity in ‘M’. I do not care a fig for Hindu rituals and practices.

But the gurus, however phoney, hardly run to

-such crudity as Birinchi Baba. And the chelas are never so universally moronic. Attack on superstition is welcome. But vulgarising it only takes away from the effectiveness. -(Take for instance the particularly distasteful sceuce where ‘Rabi Ghosh capers about in a bra and with two wooden

arms). May be Satyajit's Brahmo background has something to do with this overaealousness. Now. 25.6.65. Sarbani Gupta, Calcutta Ell

Satyajit’s Latest Satyajit Ray’s latest film, like his other films, has provoked controversy. Comparisons have been made with his earlier works and similaritiies noticed with the two preceding

the latest. It has been noted that it ‘has not swept reviewers -ofl‘ their feet‘ and the correspondent in New (June 25} points out, almost gleefully, "a certain lack of warmth in the praise

showered on it.‘ The writer must be assured that the “two reactions" described leave out a lot of other reactions to

Clo 311.?

KAPURUSI-I D"HHHAPUI>UHH 31

“sound and» balanced criticism“. The only thing is that such criticism is hard to come by even in respect of R.ay‘s first two films. Uucritical adulation does the creative artist no good fbut the critic, it must be emphasised, does not necessarily have to be a detractor. It seems that our writer’s appetite for some sort of a "‘mmsage', whatever that may mean, stands in the way of appreciating Knpurnsh 0 Mnhnpurusk.

Technique, acting

or direction, we are told, does not make a great film. Doesn't she unwittingly admit that the film is endowed with these qualities ? As regards the ‘message’ she starts out on the

wrong premise that Kapurnsh

relates the story of "the

modern woman asserting her rights.

Another critic also

finds elusive similarities between Mahanngnr, Chartrintn and Kapurush and suggests that in all the three films the woman

is basically the same. lvladhabi Mukherjee plays the leading role in all three ; this is a mere accident. There is nothing more to it than that.

In Mnhanngnr the housewife goes out to work not to assert her economic independence but to come to the aid of the family and the harassed and hard-working husband.

In Chnrulntn, to say that the woman seeks her right to love is to miss the mark widely. The situation has a universality ; the inner urge of a woman to love and to he loved whatever be the odds, to express her own self through basic feminine affection. The circumstances are just incidental. In Knpurnsh it is a situation in which the man and woman happen to find themselves and their yearning to get away from that.

It

causes ripples in their otherwise placid lives, but does not shake them oil‘ their moorings. The film is typically slender in theme and rich in poetic suggestions. Ray’s films evoke responses because they are intransigent in their human concern. The tonic freshness they brought into our cinema is well known. Due may have reservations about some films. But our writer goes one better and intiutg.-a in prognostications of "decline". She mentions the

= Clo glc

32 FEM POLEMICS

first two films as having had a "resounding succem" and then comm straightway to the latest, glossing over other important works, notably Knnchnnjnnghrr and Devi On Mrthnpurusk she is really amusing. Credit for the “killing funny" dialogue is given to the writer while the theme with “its streak of

vulgarity" repels her against the director.

Admittedly

Mnirnpurrrrlt is the most literary of Ray’s films.

But does

that fact entitle one to observe double standard in criticism ‘l Finally, her last remark on Satyajit‘s “Brahmo background” and all that leaves "a nasty taste in the mouth". Probodh Kumar Maitra Calcutta

I] Time was when readers enjoyed the comments on the cinema by Mr. Chidananda Dasgttpta.

But now it is only

occasionally that he writes seriously as well as sincerely. In New of May 14 .he said much about Knpurush 0 Mahopurnsh, but did not mention the outstanding performances of artist other than lvladhabi lvlukherjee. Anyway one should not bother with all these omissions. Hut I eanlt help objecting to some of his comments. To find out similarities with Chnrulnrn he made several

observations, concluding, ‘But the position of the woman who

is married to one man and loves another, has not changed". ls it so '3 Charu had an outlet for her suppressed love in Amal. And she realised the intensity of her love when Amal was away. But Karuna’s love had always been very expressive. Sire loved and liked to be loved at any cost but she failed. And after her marriage it was a different picture. Rather it is An1al’s position that seems to have any link with Amitabha’s. In Chnruln to Amal’s morality and sincerity to his elder brother keep him away. And in Krtpnrush

Amitabha's lack of courage closes the door. Sndhin Biswas Now. 2.7.65.

Clo yglc

Calcutta

Akash Kusum MRINAL SEN By

Film Critic

Seeing Aknslr Ktrsnrn can be as disappointing an experience as watching an aeroplane taxying down a runway, apparently headed for a spectacular take-off, which at the

last moment slows down, changes course and sedately makes for the hangar at the other end of the airport. About nine-tenth‘s of Aknsh Kusurn seemed to be leading

to an uproariously funny deuouement, a take oil‘ into the absurd and the sureal. The theme—-a day dreaming youth’: bungling attempts to cross the wealth barrier into a world of ease and sophistication—pointed to such an ending, which from the treatment of the earlier parts, also appeared to be the directofs intention. The director, Mrinal Sen,

used every device

at his

command to underline the unreality of the hero’s quest for love and status through wealth. The hero imagines himself to be a budding Napoleon of industry; in reality he rig

merelya bungler. To emphasise the contrast between his world of fantasy and the real world, lvlrinal Sen uses some photographs (published in this newspaper) to depict floods in Calcutta streets; while this lends a documentary air to the film, it also makes it unreal because the still photographs are

out of place in a film. True, Sen overdom this a bit, but on the whole his intention is clear. For instance. when he freezes, the heroine's grin into an unchanging smile, we realise that this to the impossibly romantic lover, is a timeless moment , to us on the other hand, that mumified grin isextremely funny, it prieks the bubbles of romance. Film-3

Clo git:

3-4 FILM POLEMICS

All this led us to expect a thundering climax in which the soaring balloons of the hero’s own illusions would be ruthlessly pricked. The revelation of the deception that the hero had been practising was fit occasion for some high .-comedy, at the end of which the hero might still have retained, like Don Quixote, his schizophrenic view of the world but we would have got our laughs while in some street

corner of our heart we have retained as we do for the knight

of the woeful countenance—-a trace of sympathy, even admiration, for his hopeless dreamer. Instead, the ending despite the charming view of the pretty heroine—the back of her sari contrasting with the white frame of the window-—is trite, almost Roman Holidayish. The dream is over, the princess back in her castle, but the hero can still sing songs about her as the troubadours wrote poems about their unapproachable ladies. It may, however, be unfair to grumble about the romantic ending when the rest of the film is so ruthlessly funny. In fact, even this ending may seem too cruel for most of our viewers ; it is more likely that they would have been pleased if at the end the hero had made a big pile at the races or the stock exchange and wedded his sweetheart. The acting, photography and music is good. It would be n pity if this film proved too adult, too anti-sentimental for

our matinee crowds. E]

The Statesman, July, 23, 196$

Sir, As the writer and joint scenarist of the film Akosl: Kusunt ,;|1,;,.,,,. mg mt =39;-any my appreciation of the review of our film in your paper. However, it is difficult to reconcile the

first few lines of the review with the concluding passage; “It would be a pity if this film proved too adult, too anti-sentimental for our matinee crowds. Secondly, we feel, a Don Quixotic ending for a contempo-

- Cit‘) git:

- AKASII KUSUM 35

rary story with all its immediacy of tho scono would hayo boon totally unconvincing and honco disastrous. For a poriod piocc, no doubt, this could havo boon a plausiblo postulatc. Tho cinoma mirrors tho rcality too objoctiyoly, with a ruthloss procision and lucidity oi‘ tho imagos ; honco it is almost impoasiblo to Iond styliaod ambiguity to a topical thcmc. I stross tho word ‘topical’. Iam writing on thcsc two points procisoly bocauso your critic docs not challango tho incvitability of tho onding of our film. In fact, by implication hc conccdos its logical dovolopmcnt in tho body of his criticism. Ashis Barman, Calcutta, July 25 Tho Statesman, Aug. 3, I965

El Sir,

Mr. Ashis Barman, writing about tho film story. Altaslt Kasam in his Icttcr in Tho Statesman of August 3-4. lays

much stross on tho topicality of his thcmc. May I point out that tho topicality of tho thomc in clum-

tion strotchcs woll back into antiquity, when it found oztprossion in that touching fablc about thc poor doludcd crow with a fatal wcakncss for status symbols ? Had Mr. Barman known of tho fato of this crow, ho would suroly have iuipartcd tho ltnowlodgc to his protagonist, who

now acts in comploto ignorancc of traditional procopta, with --nccd I add—fabulous conscquoncm. Satyajit Ray,

Calcutta, August 5 The Statesman, Aug. I0, I965 Sir,

[fool flaunt-ad msoo that Mr. Satyajit Ray, ono of tho grcatcst film-makors of tho world has in his lottor today taltcu notc of my lottor (August 3-4) portaining to your film critic’a

roviow of our film Akash Kusaru.

Clo 31¢

36 FILM POII-H-MICE

In his nimblo commonts howoyor ho has mittod up two dilforont aspocts of a topical thomo; for tho topicality of a story docs not nogato tho basic human urgos liko loyo. jealousy, hungor, hopo, or tho dosirc for a bottor lifo. What it docs is to stamp thosc basic urgos with tho contomporary forms of oxprossion and tho urgoncy of a contral focus. As for as tho question of imparting tho procopts of antiquity to tho protagonist is concornod, may I romind Mr. Ray that groat mon liltc Christ, tho Buddha and Gandhiji havo

dono tho samo from agcs past-—oyidontly, with not much succoss. Our task is to portray tho roality and not to liyc in an imaginary world of our own croation.

Ashis Barman, Calcutta, August 10

Tho Statesman, Aug. l4, 1965 El Sir,

Mr. Sttyajit Ray {August 10-11) has raisod tho quostioa oi topicality with rogard to tho film-story Akash Kasant. Docs Mr. Ray dismiss tho topicality of tho thomo in quostion on tho ground that tho kind-of practico as adoptod by tho protagonist datos back to antiquity I do not fool suro. In this conncsion I am rathor tomptod to bring a champion in this soomingly osciting polomics—-Chaplin, who much in tho imago of tho poordoludod crow of Aosop’s't‘abloo oitpromod, to quoto his own words, ‘my concoption of tho ayorago man of any man, of tnysolf.‘ His dorby, according to him, stroyo for dignity, his moustacho for vanity and so on, and in lator yoar aftor World War ll (whoa tho world was

atrociously dllforont), this ago—old fatal wcaknoss for status symbols droyo Chaplin to kill a. dozon womon. And lain suro Mr. Ray will not cortainly doubt tho topicality of Chaplin's

thomo brought out with such mastory during tho long yoars cf his film caroor.

Was not, this madnoss, which is so palpablc in all of Chaplin's works, oyidont in Don Quisoto which yot romaincd

Cit‘) G-':. F.

MULBH KUBUM I1

contomporanoous, and in our clays do wo not sharo tho samo

aborration in loasor or groator dog roo with indood, "fabulous consoquonccs" ? To concludo, I do not, by any chanco, wish to tako rofugo nndor tho fable-crow‘s wings and claim to bo an Aosop or a Coryantcs or Chaplin. I hayo mado a film callod Akash Kusam and that is all.

Mrinal Son, Calcutta, August I0. El Sir,—-—Mt' Satyajit Ray (August 10-ll) has oyor looked tho possibility that thoro aro pooplo who can oyor grow childron’s fablcs or, bcttcr still, translato thom into an adult isnguago. as for his slows on topicality and antiquity! cannot takc thom scriously. Nor can Iapprociato his pun on tho word fablo whon ho speaks of “fabulous consoquonccs," Barun Chanda, Calcutta, August I2.

D Sir,--Mr

Satyajit

Ray

(August

ID-ll)

instoad of

constructivoly criticising tho film Akash Kusurn dircctly

in a round about mannor pulls its diroctor and story writor‘s It gs and quibblos with words.

Mr. Ray himsolf borrows

from old and outdatod storios and idcas in his films. How thon can ho blamo anyono for such borrowing ‘I’ Wo do moot tho typo of horo shown with in this film. In that sonsc it is not outdatod though not absolutoly original in concoption or .troatmont.

Rajat Roy Choudhury, Calcutta. August 10. Tho Statesman Aug. 15 1965

Cl Sir--I hayo so far boon croditing Mr. Mrinal Son-—thc diroctor of Akash Kusam-with having largoly camouflaged tho woaltnossos oi‘ his story by moans of sorno audacious -cinomatic sloight-of-hand, and blaming him only for tho son-

Co 31¢

33 FILM PDLEHICB

timentality of his ending. I soc now from his lottor (August 15-

16) that I have been wrong. Mr. Son, along with his writor Mr. Barman, ratos his film as a valid contemporary fable. It really docs not bother mo much that his horols bchaviour dates back to antiquity.

In fact, I am prepared

to believe that such naive pervcrsity may anist anon to-day if only to receivo a moral lesson at tho end of a film. What I fail to soc, howovor, is what conceivable topical point such

behaviour and its consoquencos are likely to make or have made in the film. If Alias}: Kasant has any contomporanoity, it‘s on the surface-in its modish narrative dcvicos and in sonic lively dotails of city life. But whore is tho topicality in

its theme, and whoro is it in the attitude of its makers “I Do Messrs Son and Barman believe thoy have mado an angry film about struggling youth nssailing tho bastion of class '1"

But surcly any such notions developing in tho courso of tho

story are wholly dissipated by tho ending, which gives us not a confrontation of Have and I-lave not {which might havo mado a social point, howovor hackneyod), but an indignant father concornod about his only daughter's future ticking oil‘ a suitor who has turned out to be an impostor. Hardly a topical prodicamont, onc would have thought. I wish Mr- Sen hadn't dragged Chaplin into this, although by doing so he has rovoalod that his defence of his own film stoma from a misunderstanding of tho tramp charactor. Tho tramp knows only too well that ho is not fooling anybody for any longth of time with his Derby and his moustacho: The only person ho evcr triod to fool was a blind flower-girl who found him out tho momont shc found her oye sight. Tho tramp, in fact, is not Aosop’s foolish crow at all,but a wiso crow who has loarnt Aosop’s lesson and yot wears the poaoock’s tail as a constant rcminder of the

inherent absurdity of status symbols. It is this wordly cynicism which makes Vsrdoax-a figuro of our times.Satyajit Ray, Calcutta. August 16.

'

Tho Statesman, Aug. 21 H65

Gt) 31¢

ti

AICASH ICUSUM 39

Sir,—-Mr Satyajit Ray in his letter (August 21-22) has

osposed himself more than he has our film, Akasn Kasam. A Story reflects, topicality on two levels —-in the books of Mrs. Ciaskoll, Kingsley or Dickens the stress is onthe physical plane, on confrontation ; in those of Thackeray, Trollope or George Eliot it is on intolloctuality, on value-judgement. And all of them belonged to the same ares. Two Stories or plays by the same author may mirror different approaches ,-, for osamplo, lbson's An Enemy of the People "is more social and physical whereas his .tJott’s House is on the personal plane.

The topicality of the former is

evidently more social, while that of the latter intellectual.

The same is true of Gorky’s Mother in contrast with his The Artalnanovs.

ln another art form, Mr Ray’s Kanchanja.-tga

and Mattanagar can also be cited as examples. The topicality of

Alias}: Kasam, whatever its worth,

i in its value judgement, apart from its atmosphere, locale, speech, attitude, behaviour and style. Both the hero and the parents of the girl measure "success" in terms of money. Precisely because of this, the hero's idol is a tycoon not a scientist, engineer. painter, teacher or singer.

The

unattainability of this ideal from his social stratum is another

aspect of tho truth, of topicality, also of value-judgment. Mr Ray has totally overlooked this cardinal point. As a consequence, he has misunderstood Chaplin for there is

"fooling" in every scene of Verdnnx,

in fact, Chaplin kills

a dozen women in a gusto of fooling around, or, perhaps, Mr. Ray, on the theoretical level, relies on

adolescent

confrontation as was reflected in the disastrous ending of his film Mahanagar. Ashis Barman, Calcutta, August 71.

E] Sir,—-It is a good augury that even Mr Sityajit Ray’s

views about a film do not go unscathed. Ifoel that the

Co 31¢

Ill] FILM PDLEMIC5

letters, except that from Mr Mrinal Sen, are an exploitation of the opportunity to criticise Mr. Ray when such an opportunity has at last presented itself. The question of topicality raised by Mr. Ray is very pertinent indeed and if one see the film, Almsh Kusams

one expects all the time some dramatic turn of events which would give the complexities (and absurdities) raised in llilfi

earlier part a grand finale in the form of teaching the impostor a lesson. Alas 1 the story fiaales but to the utter disappointment of the viewers with a few drops of impotent tears of the heroine and the hero walking out with his confidence in his mcdus operandi shaken. The story convelli nothing meaningful except a young incompetent man’I~ desire to have the hand of the daughter of a wealthy man. S. K Ganguly, Gauhati, August 22. El Sir, Mr. Satyajit Ray’s Big Brother attitude towards Mr. Mrinal Sen and Mr. Ashis Barman is surprising. Alcash Kasnm has

contemporanoity in its very theme and not on the surface. Castle building in the air is topical enough. Would Mr. Ray kindly define topicality in simple language for our benefit 1' Dllip Das, Kulti, August 23. El Sir, I could not believe that the author of the letter published on August ll]-ll was Mr. Satyajit Ray. The purport of the letter is too naive,too small to come from a great film director.

It is time Mr. Ray showed tolerance of somebody else‘s ideas. Minoo Ray, Calcutta, August 14.

III Sir,

The exchange of letters between Mr. Satyajit Ray and

Meats Mrinal Sen and Ashis Barman is amusing. In his

Clo 31¢

arcasti rtususr 41 latut letter ( August 2!-—-22 ) Mr Ray considers himself an authority on what he calls “contemporaneity". I doubt it very much after seeing his Kaparush. I congratulate the director and the writer of Akasf: Kasum for their courflflfl to show something real. Roma Cowdhury, Calcutta, August 2L The Statesman, August 27, 1965. El Sir,

Instead of disputing and giving a valid opinion on my argument on the question of topicality of the theme, allegedly stretching ‘well back into antiquity,‘

Mr. Satyajit Ray in

his letter ( August 21--22 } has given an independent analysis of my film /lkosh Kttssrm which perhaps is uncalled for. About Chaplin and his tramp—-who are two separate

personalities—-I do not wish to be inventive like Mr. Ray and

shall only quote film maker‘s himself. ‘This fellow‘, Chaplin says, ‘is many sided, a tramp. agentleman, a poet, a dreamer, a lonely fellow, always hopeful of romance and adventure-~ trying to tneet the world bravely to put up a hlulf, and he

knows that too.‘ And he is always “buffeted by life"-a fabulous consequence indeed 1 Is he then a wise crow, aware of the inherent absurdity of status symbols ? It is, in

fact, Chaplin's profound wisdom

makes such a character

-—-the little fellow,and Verdouit who, after each murder, ‘goes

home as would a bourgeois husband after a hard dayls work." Further, on the eve of World War ll, Chaplin felt the edge of his character needed sharpening and that is how the little fellow underwent a metamorphosis.

This perhaps, further clarifies ray previons argument. But then, I do not bring in Chaplin's tramp and Verdoux to show enact parallels in Aicash Kusam; it was just to iIlus— trate my own comment on the question of topicality. M1-inal Sen, Calcutta, Augns_t_24.

Co 31¢

42 Fl'l..MPD1-EMICS Sir,

I have rmd with interest the letters on Alcasili Kiisiim I have seen the picture and feel constrained to say that it has not been able to retain the reputation of Mr. Sen as a film director. It _is a common place production. Bitcept for some lively dialogue, there is hardly anything praiseworthy

in the picture. Banality rather than topicality is pronounced in it. ll K. Ghosh, Calcutta, Angus 1'? El Sir,

Mr. Satyajit Ray’s letter (August 21--22) about Akash

Kusuni reveals dogmatism and intolerance. Our sympathy goes to the hero of the film.

Samar Multherjee, Calcutta, August 21

II] Sir, With reference to Mr. Satyajit Ray's comments on topicality and antiquity is Akash Kusum, I saw the film with an unbiased

mind and did not feel that it was dull.

The

dissipated ending of Akash Kusarn reminded me of another film-Kopurush, made by Mr. Ray himself. I believe its creator will not disown its topicality. Chinmoy Ciuha Thkurta, Calcutta, August 21

El Sir,

I wish Mr. Satyajit Ray would refrain from attacking the

works of other film directors. In so illustrious a film personage one should expect a critic who is a little more understanding. ln his criticism of Akosli Kusum there is a per-

Go gin

AKASH KHBUM - 43

ceptihle under current of cynicism, which is unbecoming of a person of such renown. Shankar Chanda, Calcutta, August 21. The Statesman At gust 29, 1965-

El Sir,

Mr. lvlriual sen (August 15-16) in discussing the topicali-ty of the theme of Alcasti Kasam, has very rightly differed with Mr. Satyajit Ray. In one of his films Chaplin wears a strange, subtle and terrifying mask, which represents something that eitists at the very edge of life. A noted author has posed a question. “ls it possible that the mask of Charlie which suggests pan, also suggests a skull, and we laugh because of the very ellroniery of this walking skeleton who has appeared from nowhere with no authority at all escept the. iiuihfllilf which comes from the dead ‘l---Charlie is a kind of

reverent, a pale ghost of the past, but instead of trying to kill the living, he attempts to give them more abundant life." The introduction of status symbols in a film story does not reveal to my mind a fatal weakness. Jayanta Chandra Roy Chaudhury, Calcutta, August l5-

El Sir, I read with great interest “Mutiny in Beadon Street" and

Akasti Kirstin: published in your paper. What impressed me most are the concluding lines in Ashis Harman's letter (August 14- 15). “Our task is to portray the reality and not to live in an imaginary world of our own creation." Unfortunately most of our film directors dwell in their own fantastic world, forgetting that films and stage plays are intimately connected with the rhythms of life and the pulse of the people, especially when a country is struggling for

= Clo 31¢:

-44 FHMIOIBLHCS

progr. Look at the films being shown in Calcutta-ii colossal waste of celluloid. Satyajit Ray has made films most of which have satisfied only his artistic mind. Kalle! may be wortheless as propaganda, but it has the fire in it ; Akash Kai-uni may he a flop, but it has portrayed a protagonist who lives in reality. This cannot he said about Ray's Kapurttsh-0-Mahapurush, -and Jalsaghar.

Cliariitata, Kancfianjitriga Amiya K. Banerjee

Calcutta, August 14 El Sir,

The debate over the topicality of Alcasli Kasumis, in my opinion, spoiling the average film-goerls enjoyment of the film. The letters feel that too much stress is being laid -on an aspect which does not bother him. What he likes is the -charming vignette of city life that the film offers. It deals with an episode a casual affair, the like of which is being

-experienced daily in a large city. Out of the willing crowds, a strange face apears; a brief romance; and then all is over, leaving one with perhaps a trace of reget, which, however, is soon forgotten in the business of day-to-day living. It somehow reminds us of the short short stories of O. Henry. The average film—goer does not particularly care where

‘the topicality of the theme lies or whether the behaviour of the hero dates hack to antiquity or is modern. Oscar wilde said; ‘All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who

go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read

the symbol do so at their peril.‘ Ipsita Chakravarti ( Miss) Calcutta, August 21. The States-nian, August 29. 1965.

= Clo 31¢:

AKAS1-IKUSUM 45?

Sir,

In Fill "Pinion Akasli Kttsam is a tragic tale of the shattering of the romantic illusions of the middle class wlm

aspire to reach the upper rings of society and build up a successful career only to he hit hack by the l1'l eooneilabi.... Iity between notion and environment. The film’s ending is not ‘sentimental’ ; it would have been so had the heroine united with her fiance in defiance of her guardians and envirq|1mg[||;_ It is strange that the creator of Kaparash disputes thg. topicality of Altash Kasarn. Both films are anti-romantic tragedies. lam, however, at one with Mr Ray that Chaplin-

Iheuld not have been drsssed into this controversy; hi]. tramp character has hardly any eannggiqn with ;11,, lhgmg. of Alcash Kirsten. ‘ Mihr Kumar lvlitra,Calcutta, August 22. D

.

Sir, Mr Satyajit

Ray’s

rejoinder { August

Barman and Mr Sen seemed uncharitahle.

21-22)“, Mr

As I have sag];

Mr Ray’; Mahapitrush, I feel that he should not hgyg written this letter. Does he sincerely believe that 11¢ ha;

been able to portray in Mahaparash what he eitpeets in Akasli Kasiim ‘I’

R- Res, Caliiullfli August 21.

Tl” Siflisttfles, Ans. 30. 1965El Sir, Here is brief resume of contemporary reality as dcpicted in the contemporary film Akasli Kusani :

Rich barrister-‘s daughter and handsome popular sing‘,meet at wedding, precipitate contemporary phenomenon-

= Clo 31¢:

46 ~ FILM PDLBMICS

love at first sight.

Hero lives in hovel but by contemporary

luck is blessed with physical attributes of wellbred elflunce.

To further big business ambitious hero borrows money from convenient rich friend, invests in contemporary galavanometers. Also borrows rich friendls car, clothes, telephone and apartment in further ambitious romance. Romance marked by frozen contemporaneity, involves persistent lying

but not in beds.

Rich friend uses contemporary discretion

against putting foot down on herols aberration, lets scenarist,

not logic, have era y with story. Hero resists own qualms for ditto reason.

Enter contemporary calamity: trusting hero

swindled by treacherous broker. Ambition thwarted, romance threatened. Enter contemporary personage called Illeus Eit lvlachina. DEM reveals herols antecedents to girl‘s father. Distraught hero turns up at girl's residence to make clean -brst, is turned out by father. Contemporary finale with boy and girl waving sad farewell.

Contemporary moral :

A crow-film is a crow-film is a

crow-film. Satyajit Ray, Calcutta, August 20 The Statesman, Sept. l, 1965

E] Sir,

Mr. Satyajit Ray {September 1-2) has made a fine use of dramatic irony ; but dramatic truth, I am afraid, has been distorted. The moral at the end betrays a laboured effort to crow over the writer and the director of Alcasii Kusani. Mr. Ray too goes too far when he finds Dens Bit Machina in the person of the mother of the hero's rich friend. The finale shows no sign of fantasticality. It has the touch of dramatic reality. S. R. Chatterjee,

Krishnagar, September 2

G0 glc

sitssn 'rctis'tn.-r 41 Sir, Mr. Satyajit Ray‘s letters on allrasli Kasai:-i rgigg ggygral questions Why should contemporancity ( ugly "ward 1 ) be so all important for a film ‘i Should there be a ban, say, an filming the Mahabharata ‘l’ S. N. Basu,

Calcutta, September 1 1:1 Sir,

lwish that Mr. Ray would note that the concept of s Dons Eit machina is anything but contemporary, and that when it used to appear in the ancient Cireak plays it did not turn all high hopes and pretty plans to a shambles, but rather sent the audience home happy and without regret. The following moral may he considered. Blame not the artist for portraying a skull, Shankar Chanda, Calcutta, September 1 El Sir,

Mr. Mrinal Sen‘s sense of topicality or contemporaneity is more perfect than that of Mr. Ray. Mr‘ Ray should gain more knowledge of the hard realities of the present day society. This may lead to a Satyajit Ray masterpiece in the contest of contemporaneity. Nitya Ciopal Chaltraborty,

Calcutta, September l El

Sir, Alcash Kasani is as old as ornaments and as new as the

latest fashion in them. Its contemporneity consists in the depiction of the social background and not in the creation of

Co 31¢

43 FILM POLEMIC-S

an nntypical central character. In fact, Akash Kirstin: is a story charmingly told, with no serious social message in it. Satyabadi Roy,

Calcutta, September l E] Sir, Mr. Satyajit Ray has rightly classified Akash Kusuni as a crow-film. Any enlightened viewer will find a very great difference between Chaplin's tramp and Mr. Batman's hero,

whose entire thinking rolls round blnfiing. Dilip Ghosh, Calcutta, September l El Sir,

'

I-Igying seen Mr. Ray‘s Teen Kenya, l daresay that Mr. Ray is not competent to judge the film of another producer. Mars]; Mr. Ray is no Chaplin, is no Chaplin is no Chaplin. S. Rajen,

Calcutta, September 1 El Sir,

The polemics between two of our able film directors drew me to this picture. Ifound that Akasti Kara.-n eitpressed faithfully, if a trifle eitaggeratedly, the libido of a large

section of the city's submerged mass. Mr. Satyajit Rayls assumption about an inevitable antithesis between antiquity and topicality is naive. K. Bhattacharyya,

Calcutta, August 29

= Clo 31¢:

stcssn itususr -er Sir, Only one person does not known how great is Mr. Satyajit Ray. That is Mr. Ray himself. How else could he stop to attacking a poorer colleague so mercilessly '1' G. Mackeevi,

Calcutta, September ¢ El Sir,

It has always been a pleasure to go through the letterr published in The Statesman regularly, particularly the array

on Akasli Kasam prompted by a personality like Mr. Satyajit Ray. Butl am totally imable to understand whyMr. Ray involved himself in this undesirable debate. Devaprosad Sinha, Calcutta, September I. Cl Sir,

As a result of this controversy all that has l.‘|nppet1etl'ig,_ that a medicare film has received tremendous publicity and the general public has lost some of its regard for Mr. Ray. Indi-ra Sen {Mrs.),.

Calcutta, September 1 El Sir, Oscar wilde, in his preface to The Picture of Dorata Gray,

says : ‘Diversity about a work of art shows that it is new, complex and vital.‘ The interesting letters, especially thus: from the learned pens of Mssrs. Satyajit Ray, Mrinal San and Ashis Barman, prove that Atcash Kasam arrests attsnri,m__ To see the film is indeed an artistically satisfying eltperieng-.¢_ R. Vijay,

Calcutta, August -30» Film—4

= Clo 31¢:

‘Q Flllll-ltlt1’,¢?ls§~'?l§'-'3 Sir,

‘ “?.‘“E °'9“.F??FP‘“‘° 1"?“-* °"-.1"!'*li=,'?,i1=fl. =9. mm, lsttsss an

A_1f_=If_{=_ {usurp and this csttllvlisbing the fact that th__e ‘Bengali cinema audiences arcyc-__ry _sensitiye and cannot be taken for '

fl’.

1

I

_._

_

granted all the time.

" ‘i '

Parijat Mukherjee {Miss}, Calcutta, September 3

U Sir, ‘A story, claiming _to betopical, has at last been retold by Me. Satyajit Ray (September 1-;2), and in_ doing sol remlntlfl me of one who, ins desperate bid to impress upon his buyer, approacbedia fi_lm_ prodnc_er__ IP QB ear.-[itiI,g' stoyy ofa murdpg in a Royal House highlighted by a host of saleable ingredi!ent_s—-gho-st-mystery-romance-betrayal-incest episodes ending in the heroine turning mad and killing .herself and the hero committing suicide with, of course, some more killing in between and a play within a play.

The story

incidentally, is Hamlet. I wonder it‘ soneone would like to malle a contemporary tragedy on celluloid with the desperate story-seller as the protagonist. In‘ trying to derive a ‘contemporary moral‘ Mr. Ray by

adding three doubtful prefixes, has conveniently reconstructed 'a famouh line which originally belonged to the French film director Jean-Luc Godard: ‘A film is a film is a film " In this connexion it may be interesting to note that Mr. Godard, unlike a moral and will perhaps "suffer" many human frailties including ‘persistent lying" even ‘in beds‘.Sen, Mrioal Calcutta, September 1 Q. Sir,

It is no pleasure either for myself or for Mr. Mrinal Sen tg np_§;}_e,M1;. Satyajit Ray whose artistic sensibility continues

l Clo 311.:

AKAQH KUSUM $1

to inspire us. We feel, however, considerably assured by the fact that his anger is actually directed towards his own totally untenable position regarding topicality as enumerated in his first Ietizp (August 10-1 l_)_. ln_ an inadvertent moment perhaps le asserted: by implications, that tlnpiucallty negates basic human urges.

The’ phfife hjstgggpflaffilflyiflq

this unguarded assertion and hence Mr Ray finds himsel ,

theoretically, enmeshed in a helpless posture. This conceptual bungling notwithstanding, and the question of taste involved in his unexpected _ intrusion, our -boundless admiration for his creative stature remains un_dj_minished, though not for his analytical acumen. _ Ashis Barman’

Calcutta, September 1 The Statesman Sept, 13, l9d5

= Clo 31¢:

Ray’s Impeccable Artefact By ova FILM carrtc Let me begin by emphasising what should be obvious, but tends not infrequently to be overlooked through prejudice, timidity or unconcern. A reviewer of Indian films must have two sets of standards: one for Satyajit Ray and the other for all the rest. Ray must be judged by the standards he himself has-set or those which have become relevant to the Indian Cinema because of him. The explanation seems necessary lest anybody should think that adjectives like good or bad, indificrent or excellent, used in discussing a Ray film bear any relationship, for comparative assessment of merit, to the same term applied to films made by other Indian directors. The reader will rightly suspect this preface to be a precaution against possible misconstruction of any criticism that Imight make of Ray‘s Neyok (The Hero}.

But that will

come later ;first admiration for a work of magnificient craftsmanship lyes, by Ray's own standards and those of other masters of the craft). Who cares of some of the ideas and devices do not seem wholly original when they have been handled so well F From the modern the titles appear superimposed upon a bold design of squares darkened by the shadow of a vibrant shape against the glare of sunlight blurring the surrounding pattern, to the deliberately inconcluelusive nature of the end, there is never a moment of technical insufficincy or uncertsinity, hardly ever a sign of the slightest fall from Ray’s subtle understanding and impeccable management of a sensative and complicated medium.

The dark shape at the beginning is the head of the hero,

Cit‘) G-':. rs

saws rstraetmn assessor. as Sitting dressed before taking a train to Delhi to receive a film award ; at the end, before the final fade-out, all that can be seen is that face again polite, proper and yet distracted in the middle ofa crowded of excited fans at Delhi railway station. The distraction really begins earlier. After .a heady record of uninterrupted success as the most popular star of the Bengali Cinema, the ‘Shale Whimsical Public‘ has been disturbingly cool to his latest film; there is also the matter of some uncomfortable press publicity to a minor

scandal.

Inside the Shell None of this would perhaps have made any difference to the train journey, which is all that takes place in the film, if a young girl-editor of a woman's magazine, ' but resolute-

ly resistant to a film star’s glamour—-had not begun to ask

him some blunt questions about his life. His evasive charm has little edect on the girl, who is interested in little more than an interview she could use. But behind his deprecating defensive shell, the hero is tormented by memory and doubt and has strange dreams when seeking an escape in sleep. So he must talk, the more he talks to the girl the stronger

becomes the urge to tell all : how he had been warned against a film career by an older friend and mentor, how

hard he had worked to get to the top, what a price he had to pay, how he had built a wall around himself for proteotiflll

from the image-shattering reality of ordinary life, what small recompense his money and fame had really brought him.

The girl begins to understand, from which grows sympathy. But the train arrives in Delhi , Arindam the awardwinning film star has to wear his mask again ; the girl, Aditi, walks away far, too sensible even to look back at the hero amidst the kind -of people»But the vestibule-d train is a small island inhabited, by

= Clo 31¢:

is I 'oil'1'er:people 'as'well;_ the hero is exposed ‘to their curiosity, ‘admiration, envy, anger and even indifference. Tire steriily 'disapproving old man who lectures him about morals; the self-important

industrialist

whose

wife

and

adolescent

daughter both savour in their dilferent, but equally rapturous ways, the experience of travelling in the same compartment with the idol of their dreams ; the 'oily advertising

man who would like his pretty wife to bring the industrialist into the proper frame of mind to give him some business, the pleasant couple who watch Aditi's interviews with Arindam with affectionate indulgence but later with groa ing incnmprehension-—all the characters are drawn with consu-

lhfilfteudkllfaldlfwith a remarkable economy of effort.

Directed Acting Almost every part "has been extremely well acted, revealing more the influence of direction than distinctive indivi-

dtial talent. As Arindam, Uttam Kuniar has given perhapsthebest performance so far of his long and successful career. Rayls ‘direction has "hot curbed the self-assurance he ‘has developed from e:tten'sive'experience, but here it is a dlferent -kind of ease and confidence-restrained, intelligent, unaffected. The director's handiwork is unmistakable, but it would be unfair not to give full credit to the ‘actor, who had it in him to make use of this influence.

As Aditi,

Sharmlla Tagore has little to do except appear serious, under-

standing and thoroughly sensible which she does.

The old man (Jogesh Chatterjee) who writes lettess to The Srnrasrmrn against the evils of the cinema is absolutely delightlhl, Ranjit Sen is excellent as the industiralist, full of ‘himself, a bit of a pervart, an old goatand yet enough of a dlirewd businessman not to yield before being able to exact

the full prise for his "favours, and tinderstanably reIsentful*of the unconcealed intesest which his wife and daughter rake

ln‘tHe-ytlaaghére. 'l"l|1e“sick ‘daughter 'eaa"rrnlag1y played

Cit) git:

rurvts tstsacdailtn ’.sl=I*l1§.l='a‘